staff report no. 098-12 · #1 staff report no. 098-12 to: mayor and city council date: 11/05/12...

#1

STAFF REPORT NO. 098-12 TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 11/05/12 FROM: Eric Holmes, City Manager 11/19/12 Subject: 2012 Annual Review of two site specific applications for changes to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map designations, Glenwood Place (CPZ 2012-00006/PRJ2012-00589) and 87th Avenue Medical Suites (CPZ 2012-00007/PRJ2012-0855). Objectives: To review and make final determinations on applications for map designation changes submitted by property owners Proposals: Two Annual Review applications were submitted in 2012 and recommended for approval by the Vancouver Planning Commission at an October 25 public hearing: Glenwood Place is a proposed change from the Commercial Mixed-Use and CC designations to Urban High Density Residential/R-22 on 0.7 undeveloped acres at 5118 NE 82nd Avenue in the Vancouver Mall neighborhood. The current application does not include site development, but is intended to allow for a site plan application in 2013 for a group living facility which would form an extension of the existing Glenwood Place Senior Living campus also owned by the applicant. No public comments were received at or before the public hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval, on the basis that proposed residential zoning is compatible with existing uses and zoning and that the overall surrounding area contains a surplus of commercial activity.

87th Avenue Medical Suites is a proposed change from the High Density Residential and R-18 designations to Commercial Mixed-Use/CC on 4.5 undeveloped acres at approximately 87th Avenue and 5th Street in the North Garrison Heights neighborhood. The site is west of the Vancouver Clinic and Southwest Washington Medical Center and is located on a former construction debris landfill. The application does not include a development proposal, but is intended to allow for a future site plan application for a surface parking facility under the proposed commercial zoning, to primarily serve nearby medical uses. By 4-1 vote, the Planning Commission recommended denial of a proposed change to commercial designations but approval of a change to the Industrial comprehensive plan and Office Campus Industrial (OCI) zoning designations, on the basis that OCI zoning at the site met Vancouver code criteria but CC zoning did not, and that OCI would be more compatible with surrounding residential and medical uses. OCI zoning does not allow non-accessory parking, but staff indicated they would consider forwarding recommended code changes to allow non-accessory surface parking as a conditional use. The dissenting vote found that commercial zoning did meet code criteria, and was the most direct method of allowing surface parking as desired by the applicant. Public testimony at the hearing was limited to three nearby property owners with concerns about exiting methane venting from the landfill on the site, potential light glare from a future parking

Staff Report 098-12 November 5, 2012 November 19, 2012 of 2 lot, and whether the proposal would impact existing covenants or sewer connections. Comments prior to the hearing were limited to a letter from the Clark County Public Health Department indicating their lack of formal jurisdiction regarding the landfill, but conceptual support for future surface parking. Advantage(s): 1. Glenwood Place: Would provide for residential zoning compatible with surrounding

properties, many of which are owned by the applicant, and would facilitate additional senior housing.

2. 87th Avenue Medical Suites: Would establish industrial zoning most consistent with applicable code criteria and nearby medical and residential uses, and potential long term medical center expansions.

Disadvantage(s): 1. Glenwood Place: None 2. 87th Avenue Medical Suites: Removing existing high density residential designation at the

site would eliminate housing options in an area lacking multi-family housing, although market acceptance of housing on the site may be limited by the presence of the former landfill. Establishing OCI zoning would require future code changes to allow non-accessory parking.

Budget Impact: No direct impacts Prior Council Review: None recently. The 87th Avenue Medical Suites site was rezoned from R-30 to the current R-18 in 2005 Action Requested: 1. On Monday, November 5, 2012, approve the ordinance on first reading, setting the date of

second reading and public hearing for Monday, November 19, 2012. 2. On Monday, November 19, 2012, following second reading and public hearing, approve the

ordinance. Exhibits: A. Ordinance B. Glenwood Place Planning Commission Staff Report and attachment C. 87th Avenue Suites Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments D. October 25, 2012 Planning Commission minutes

CDD12110501/EH:BS:AD

ORDINANCE - 1

11-05-12 11-19-12

ORDINANCE NO. _____________

AN ORDINANCE relating to Vancouver land use and zoning, amending Comprehensive

Plan and Zoning maps, amending site specific property designations based on two applications

submitted as part of the 2012 Annual Review process; Glenwood Place (CPZ 2012-

00006/PRJ2012-00589, tax lot numbers 108141-045 and 108141-046) which redesignates

approximately 0.7 acres from Community Commercial/CC to Urban High Density

Residential/R-22, and 87th Avenue Medical Suites (CPZ 2012-00007/PRJ2012-00855, tax lot

numbers 110794-004, 110787-000, and 110785-000) which redesignates approximately 4.5 acres

from Urban High Density Residential/R-18 to Industrial/OCI; and providing for an effective

date.

WHEREAS, a Combined Notice of Application, Public Hearing, and Optional

Determination of Non-significance (DNS) based on an environmental checklist review was

issued on July 27, 2012, for Glenwood Place; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Application and Public Hearing was issued on July 20 for 87th

Avenue Medical Suites on July 20, 2012, and Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance

(MDNS), with mitigation measures as follows:

ORDINANCE - 2

Mitigation Measures:

1. Prior to changing the Comprehensive Plan and Zone designation, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment shall be submitted for the former Walz Demolition Landfill on the site, evaluating potential hazardous materials, methane sources, and groundwater impacts as recommended in the April 2006 Phase I Assessment previously conducted on the site, and the potential for future methane migration to adjacent properties.

2. Prior to future development on the site, provisions shall be made as recommended in the Phase II Assessment or as otherwise necessary to ensure full compliance with Vancouver and state environmental and related standards;

and

WHEREAS, no substantive comments regarding probable significant environmental

impacts were received by the end of the comment period for Glenwood Place, and only one

comment letter was received from the Clark County Public Health Department taking no position

on the proposed designation change, and respective SEPA procedural appeal periods having

ended; and

WHEREAS, after testimony and deliberation at a duly advertised public hearing on October

25, 2012, and considering the cumulative impacts of all 2012 Annual Review Comprehensive Plan

amendment proposals, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Glenwood Place

unanimously and 87th Avenue Medical Suites by a 4-1 vote; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly advertised first reading of this ordinance on

November 5, 2012, followed by a duly advertised second reading and public hearing of this

ordinance on November 19, 2012, and considered the cumulative impacts of approving the above

referenced proposal along with other proposals considered in the same annual review cycle.

NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF VANCOUVER:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Vancouver City Council makes the following legislative findings:

ORDINANCE - 3

A. SEPA. The requirements of VMC 20.790 (SEPA Regulations) have been satisfied.

B. Comprehensive Plan Policies and Approval Criteria. Based on the analysis and findings

contained in the staff reports for the two proposals, documents entered into the hearing record,

public testimony, and discussion at the public hearings, the proposed amendments referenced

above are found to be consistent with applicable Vancouver Comprehensive Plan policies and

approval criteria, applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act, state and federal law,

and applicable provisions of the Community Framework Plan and Countywide Planning Policies,

and are necessary to further the public interest based on present and future needs and conditions,

as required by VMC 20.85.070 (B) and 20.285.090. The proposed changes to Comprehensive

Plan and zoning maps will have no significant or appreciable adverse impact on available land

supply, transportation systems, public services, or the environment due to the primarily

legislative nature of the changes.

SECTION 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS

AMENDED. The Vancouver Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps are amended as indicated in

Exhibit A of this ordinance. Tax lot numbers 108141-045 and 108141-046 are redesignated from

Community Commercial/CC to Urban High Density Residential/R-22 and tax lot numbers

110794-004, 110787-000, and 110785-000 are redesignated from Urban High Density

Residential/R-18 to Industrial/OCI.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this

ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be adjudged by any

court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such order or judgment shall be confined in its

operation to the controversy in which it was rendered and shall not affect or invalidate the

remainder of any parts thereof to any other person or circumstances and to this end the

ORDINANCE - 4

provisions of each clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this law are hereby declared to

be severable.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPEAL AND ADOPTION. This Ordinance,

being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to

referendum. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after final adoption.

SECTION 5. SUBMISSION OF ADOPTED PLAN TO THE STATE OF

WASHINGTON. The Planning Director is hereby directed to send a copy of this ordinance to

the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, within ten

days after adoption of this Ordinance.

Read the first time: November 5, 2012

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers:

Nays: Councilmembers:

Absent: Councilmembers:

Read the second time: November 19, 2012

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

Ayes: Councilmembers:

Nays: Councilmembers:

Absent: Councilmembers:

APPROVED this _________ day of November, 2012

ORDINANCE - 5

___________________________________ Timothy D. Leavitt, Mayor Attest: Approved as to form: ________________________________ __________________________________ R. Lloyd Tyler, City Clerk Ted H. Gathe, City Attorney By: Carrie Lewellen, Deputy City Clerk Exhibits

ORDINANCE - 6

SUMMARY

ORDINANCE NO. _____________

AN ORDINANCE relating to Vancouver land use and zoning, amending Comprehensive

Plan and Zoning maps, amending site specific property designations based on two application

submitted as part of the 2012 Annual Review process; Glenwood Place (CPZ 2012-

00006/PRJ2012-00589, tax lot numbers 108141-045 and 108141-046) which redesignates

approximately 0.7 acres from Community Commercial/CC to Urban High Density

Residential/R-22, and 87th Avenue Medical Suites (CPZ 2012-00007/PRJ2012-00855, tax lot

numbers 110794-004, 110787-000, and 110785-000) which redesignates approximately 4.5 acres

from Urban High Density Residential/R-18 to Industrial/OCI; and providing for an effective

date.

The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request. Contact Raelyn McJilton, Records

Officer at 487-8711, or via www.cityofvancouver.us (Go to City Government and Public Records).

P.O. Box 1995 Vancouver, WA 98668-1995

www.ci.vancouver.wa.us

2012 Annual Review: Glenwood Place

Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CPZ 2012-00006, PRJ 2012-00589

Report Date: September 13, 2012 Hearing Date: September 25, 2012 Proposal: Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Designation change from Community

Commercial/CC to Urban High Density Residential/R-22 on 0.67 acres at 5118 NE 82nd Avenue in Vancouver, zipcode 98662. Proposal does not include site development.

Tax lot numbers 108141-045, 108141-046, located in the NW ¼ of Section

17, Township 2N, Range 2E of the Willamette Meridian; Vancouver Mall Neighborhood

SEPA Determination: Determination of Non-Significant (DNS) Staff Recommendation: Forward to City Council a recommendation of Approval of change to Urban

High Density Residential/R-22 designation Applicant: Glenwood Place Senior Living, LLC, Attn: Gary Rood (360) 892-2920,

[email protected] Vancouver Staff: Bryan Snodgrass, Principal Planner (360) 487-7946

[email protected] ATTACHMENT B

2012 Annual Review – Glenwood Place – Staff Report to Planning Commission

- 2 -- 2 -- 2 -- 2 -

I. BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Washington law, all properties in Vancouver contain a general Comprehensive Plan map designation, and a corresponding, more detailed zoning map designation which specifies the types of new land uses that can be developed. The Annual Review process allows for consideration of proposals to change these designations on individual properties. The GMA requires that most Comprehensive Plan changes be considered once per year, to allow for cumulative evaluation of impacts.

One other Comprehensive Plan change proposal is being re reviewed through the 2012 Annual Review process, a change from Urban High Density/R-22 to Community Commercial/CC on 4.5 acres in central Vancouver (87th Avenue Medical Suites; CPZ 2012-00007/PRJ 2012 00855). It is also scheduled for Planning Commission review on September 25, and is evaluated in a separate staff report.

A third Comprehensive Plan and zoning map change from Commercial/C-3 and R-22 to Commercial/CC on 0.8 acres in northwest Vancouver is also being processed in 2012, but as part of an annexation (Hadfield) and therefore not required to be reviewed concurrently with other Comprehensive Plan changes.

II. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The application proposes changing the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map designations from commercial to multi-family residential on two adjacent properties totaling 0.67 acres located on 82nd Avenue in north-central Vancouver. The southern portion of the site (tax lot # 108141-046) contains a single family home and outbuilding. The northern portion (108141-046) is vacant. (See attached Exhibits A, B, and C) The application (Exhibit G) does not propose any development at this time, but anticipates submittal of a site plan proposal in 2013 for a group living facility, which is not allowed in the current CC zone but is allowed outright in the proposed R-22 zone. The group living facility would be an extension of the existing Glenwood Place Senior Living campus located further to the north and also owned by the applicant. These properties north and west of the proposal site owned by the applicant are in process of annexing to the City of Vancouver, along with a larger area north of Westfield Vancouver Mall. A public meeting is scheduled before Vancouver City Council on September 17. III. REVIEW PROCESS Application for the proposed designation change was submitted in April 2012 following a public application notice by web and email which began in February. The proposal has been processed under the procedures of the Annual Review program. A pre-application conference was held on May 21.


- 3 -- 3 -- 3 -- 3 -

Legal notice of the proposal and hearing dates were posted on the site and mailed to properties within 500 feet and published in the Columbian newspaper on July 20. As of September 13 one telephone inquiry was received, but no public comments. The Vancouver Mall Neighborhood Association is inactive. IV. SEPA A SEPA checklist and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on July 27 for the proposal. No comments or appeals to the SEPA determination were filed. V. STAFF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS The following staff analysis documents the findings which collectively support the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission. The analysis is based on assessment of the proposal in comparison to applicable criteria from the Vancouver Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, as determined by the application materials and supporting staff research. A. Existing Conditions and Recent History Existing conditions and designations of the proposal and surrounding area are illustrated in Exhibits B, C, D and E of this report, and are summarized as follows:

Site: Two parcels comprising 0.67 acres and containing a single family home, outbuilding, and trees. Zoned CC

North: Vacant wooded property immediately north, zoned R-22, owned by Glenwood Place. Farther north is the existing Glenwood Place Senior Living campus in Clark County.

East 82nd Avenue; across is 3-storey commercial office building (Vancouver Square Mall) and associated parking. Zoned CC

South: 0.6 acre single family homesite, zoned CC West: 0.7 acres single family homesite, zoned CC, owned by Glenwood Place

Public services are available to serve the site (Exhibits E and F)


- 4 -- 4 -- 4 -- 4 -

B. Applicable Review Standards and Staff Findings

VMC 20.285.060.B Approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan map amendments, and rezones of more than 25 acres

1. Overall. Proposed amendments reviewed under this chapter shall be approved only if demonstrated by the proponent to be in the public interest, as based on a review of all applicable principals from the following:

a. How the proposal is more consistent with applicable policies of the comprehensive plan

than the existing designation, and b. How the proposal is more consistent with each of the following objectives than the existing

designation. Consistency is not required where the objective is clearly not applicable to the type of proposal involved. 1. Encourage more intensive development to locate in major urban centers and corridors,

particularly downtown Vancouver. Encourage development of distinct neighborhoods served by commercial nodes, and discourage urban sprawl and strip commercial development;

2. Provide development of uses which are functionally integrated with surrounding areas and neighborhoods in terms of local shopping, employment, recreational or other opportunities;

3. Provide development which is compatible and integrated with surrounding uses in terms of scale, orientation, pedestrian enhancements, and landscaping;

4. Conserve or enhance significant natural or historical features; 5. Provide adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, and other public services; 6. Provide significant family wage employment opportunities and broadening of the

Vancouver economy; and 7. Provide for the formation and enhancement of neighborhoods and communities.

2. Scope of review. Review and evaluation of proposed comprehensive plan or zoning map changes shall consider both the likely and possible future use of the site and associated impacts.

3. Cumulative Impacts. The review of individual comprehensive plan map or policy amendments, other than exceptions noted in 20.285.030, shall also consider the cumulative transportation, land supply, and environmental impacts of other plan amendments proposed within the same annual cycle. 4. Required Findings. No amendment to comprehensive plan or zoning maps shall be approved unless the required findings of VMC 20.285.085 have been addressed in the written staff report and the written decision of the review authority.

Staff Findings: R-22 zoning is more consistent with the above criteria than the existing CC

designation. R-22 zoning provides for housing, which is similar in use to existing and planned residential development north, west, and south of the proposal site. Although rezoning the property to R-22 would remove 0.7 acres from commercial land supplies, the immediate area is already saturated with commercially designated lands. The site is located within an approximately 15-acre cluster of CC zoning, which lies immediately north of Westfield Vancouver Mall and an approximately 200-acre cluster of CG zoning.

See page 8 of this report for evaluation of consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies.


- 5 -- 5 -- 5 -- 5 -

This designation change proposal is far away from the other Comprehensive Plan changes being reviewed in the 2012 Annual Review cycle, and all are relatively modest in size, ensuring that there is no compounding of cumulative impacts to local public services, land supplies, economic development or overall community quality of life that is significant on a citywide scale. Each proposal is reviewed through individual staff reports.

VMC 20.285.085 General Rezone Criteria and Required Findings for All Rezones A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all rezones, including those involving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, except correction of mapping errors. In evaluating proposed rezones, the provisions of this chapter shall be weighed and balanced together to determine which zone best meets those provisions. In addition, the zone purpose, location criteria, and design statements, which describe the intended purpose and design of each designation, shall be used to assess the likelihood that the area proposed to be rezoned would function as intended. B. No single criterion or group of criteria shall be applied as an absolute requirement or test of the appropriateness of a zone designation, nor is there a hierarchy or priority of rezone considerations, unless a provision indicates the intent to constitute a requirement or sole criterion. C. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall constitute consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of reviewing proposed rezones. D. The most appropriate zone designation shall be that for which the purpose, design statement, and location criteria for the specific zone match the characteristics of the area to be rezoned better than any other zone designation. The following zoning principles shall be considered: 1. The impact of more intensive zones on less intensive zones or industrial and commercial zones

on other zones shall be minimized by the use of transitions, physical edges, or buffers, if possible. A gradual transition between zoning categories is preferred.

2. Physical edges and buffers, such as natural features, major traffic arterials and railroad tracks, open spaces, and distinct change in street layout and block orientation may provide an effective separation or transition between different uses and intensities of development.

3. Physical edges, buffers and platted lot lines shall be considered in establishing boundaries. 4. Boundaries between commercial and residential areas shall generally be established so that

commercial uses face away from adjacent residential areas, unless physical edges or buffers (arterial streets, waterways, topographic breaks, mature natural or landscape buffers, etc) provide a more effective separation between uses. 5. Lower Density Residential areas may be rezoned to Higher Density zones only if the applicant demonstrates that the area no longer meets the location criteria for a Lower Density designation or the change is recommended as part of an adopted sub-area plan.

E. Impact Evaluation. The review of a proposed rezone shall consider both positive and negative factors when evaluating land use and environmental impacts, including impacts on public facility and service capacities, in the area of the proposed rezone. F. The review of a proposed rezone shall include consideration of uses which can reasonably be anticipated based on the development potential of the requested zone, and the nature of the site and surrounding area.


- 6 -- 6 -- 6 -- 6 -

G. Consideration of changed circumstances shall include elements or conditions embodied in the location criteria, and the purpose and design statements, for the relevant zone. H. Overlay Districts. If the proposed rezone area is located within the boundaries of an overlay district or sub-area plan, the purpose and boundaries of the overlay district or subarea plan shall be considered. I. An area designated and zoned Lower Density Residential that meets the location criteria of VMC 20.410.025 for such designation, may not be redesignated or rezoned to a Higher Density Residential designation unless the change is to implement an adopted sub-area plan. Staff Findings: R-22 zoning is more consistent with the above criteria than the existing CC designation. As noted, it is more consistent with existing or planned residential uses north, west, and south of the site.

VMC 20.430.025 Commercial Zone Function and Location Criteria

A. General Criteria.

Compact, concentrated commercial areas, or nodes, shall be preferred to diffuse, sprawling , or linear commercial areas. The preservation, improvement, and redevelopment of existing commercial areas shall be preferred to the creation of new business areas or districts. Areas meeting the location criteria for Lower Density designations (i.e. R-6, R-9) are generally not appropriate for conversion to commercial. The encroachment of commercial development into residential areas shall be discouraged, except for Neighborhood Commercial within the criteria defined below for CN.

C. CC (Community Commercial) Location Criteria

The CC (Community Commercial) zone designation, as defined in above, is most appropriate in areas that are generally characterized by the following:

1. Both residential and commercial areas abut the subject site; 2. No physical edges (waterways, major arterial streets or freeways, ravines, cliffs, etc) separate the

existing residential or commercial areas from the subject site; 3. The site is located to provide a transition between more intense General Commercial areas and

surrounding residential areas; or is located along a major arterial where parcels are generally small or shallow, and are bordered by Lower Density Residential areas.

4. . The site is located on streets with good capacity (major collector streets and minor arterials) and good pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjacent residential areas.

5. Areas where the total acres in a Community Commercial cluster or node can be limited to approximately 10 acres, with other zones providing separation between Community Commercial clusters or nodes.


- 7 -- 7 -- 7 -- 7 -

E. Additional Commercial Criteria

1. Proposals to expand or create designated commercial areas shall include a current market analysis which identifies the need for the new commercial area/center.

2 Proposals to expand or create designated commercial areas shall include a current land use analysis of commercially designated and zoned land in the market area of the proposed site that includes a discussion of why the amount or character of existing commercial lands are inadequate.

Staff Findings: The existing CC zoning on the site is generally consistent with above CC locational criteria, but not with the above general commercial locational criteria when the larger surrounding area is considered. The site is part of a larger CC cluster of approximately 15 acres, located immediately north of an approximately 200-acre CG zoning cluster encompassing the entire Westfield Vancouver Mall complex. The above general criteria states a preference for compact commercial nodes rather than sprawling areas. Section 20.420.025 Higher Density Residential Zone Function and Location Criteria. B. R-22 (Higher Density Residential) Zone Location Criteria. The R-22 designation is most appropriate in areas with the following characteristics and relationships to the surrounding area: 1. Areas already developed predominantly to the permitted R-22 density and where R-22 scale is

well established. 2. Areas with close proximity and pedestrian connections to neighborhood services, public open

spaces, schools and other residential amenities. 3. Properties that are adjacent to existing business and commercial areas with comparable height

and bulk, or where a transition in scale between areas of larger multifamily and/or commercial structures and smaller multifamily development is desirable.

4. Areas well served by public transit and having direct access to arterials, such that vehicular traffic is not required to that pass through lower density residential zones; street widths must be sufficient to allow for two (2) way traffic and on-street parking in accordance with City street standards.

5. Areas with significant topographic breaks, major arterials or open space that provide a separation and transition to Lower Density Residential areas.

Staff Findings: The proposed R-22 zoning on the site is consistent with above locational criteria. The site is near commercial activity across 82nd Avenue, and at the nearby larger commercial complex including Westfield Vancouver Mall. The site is located on 82nd Avenue, an arterial.


- 8 -- 8 -- 8 -- 8 -

Vancouver Comprehensive Plan Policies CD-2 Efficient development patterns Encourage efficient development throughout Vancouver to ensure achievement of average density of 8 units per acre set by countywide planning policies. Encourage higher density and more intense development in areas that are more extensively served by facilities, particularly transportation and transit services.

CD-9 Compatible uses Facilitate development that minimizes adverse impacts to adjacent areas, particularly neighborhoods.

CD-17 Aging Populations Update policies, standards, and practices as necessary to accommodate anticipated aging of the local population, though measures such as:

(a) Develop integrated land use patterns and transportation networks that facilitate shorter vehicular trips, walking, or use of public transportation

(b) Review standards for specialty housing to ensure they are consistent with anticipated age-related housing needs

(c) Review standards and designations of conventional single and multi-family housing to ensure they are consistent with anticipated needs, including provisions for aging in place

(d) Review standards for roads and sidewalk design, signage, and lighting to address senior safety issues

EC-1 Jobs-housing balance Increase the ratio of jobs to residents in the City of Vancouver and the region.

H-5 Housing placement near services and centers Facilitate siting of higher density housing near public transportation facilities and in designated centers and corridors.

H-6 Special needs housing Facilitate housing for special needs populations dispersed throughout Vancouver and the region. Such housing may consist of residential-care facilities, shelters, group homes, or low-income housing, and should be located near transportation and other services such as health care, schools, and stores.

Staff Findings: R-22 zoning is more consistent than the existing CC zoning at the site. Although R-22 zoning does not increase the balance of jobs to housing (EC-1) or directly facilitate economic development, the immediate area is saturated with commercial lands as noted. R-22 zoning on the site will allow for an expansion of the Glenwood Place senior facilities, furthering housing placement near services (H-5), special needs housing (H-6) and provisions for aging populations (CD-17). R-22 zoning also allows for residential development compatible with surrounding properties, many of which are owned by the applicant.


- 9 -- 9 -- 9 -- 9 -

VI. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis and findings in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to Vancouver City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zone designation changes from Commercial/CC to Urban High Density Residential/R-22 on the proposal site. Exhibits:

A. Vicinity map B. Aerial Photography C. Area Zoning Designations D. Area Comprehensive Plan Designations E. Area Transportation F. Area Water, Sewer, and Storm Systems G. Application Narrative

P.O. Box 1995 Vancouver, WA 98668-1995

www.ci.vancouver.wa.us

2012 Annual Review: 87th Ave Medical Suites Staff Report and

Recommendation to the Planning Commission CPZ 2012-200007, PRJ 2012-00855

Report Date: September 13, 2012 Hearing Date: September 25, 2012 Proposal: Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Designation change from High Density

Residential/R-18 to Community Commercial/CC on 4.5 acres at approximately 87th Avenue and 5th St. Proposal does not include site development.

Property has no assigned address. Tax lot numbers 110794-004, 110787-

000, 110785-000 located in the SE ¼ of Section 29, Township 2N, Range 1E of the Willamette Meridian; North Garrison Heights Neighborhood

SEPA Determination: Mitigated Determination of Non-Significant (MDNS) Staff Recommendation: Forward to City Council a recommendation of Denial of the proposed

comprehensive plan and zone change to Commercial/CC; but Approval of change to Industrial/OCI

Applicant: NE 87th Medical Suites, LLC, Attn: Patrick Ginn, (360) 600-8813,

[email protected] Vancouver Staff: Bryan Snodgrass, Principal Planner (360) 487-7946

[email protected]

ATTACHMENT C

2012 Annual Review – 87th Avenue Medical Suites – Staff Report to Planning Commission

- 2 -- 2 -- 2 -- 2 -

I. BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Washington law, all properties in Vancouver contain a general Comprehensive Plan map designation, and a corresponding, more detailed zoning map designation which specifies the types of new land uses that can be developed. The Annual Review process allows for consideration of proposals to change these designations on individual properties. The GMA requires that Comprehensive Plan changes be considered once per year, to allow for cumulative evaluation of impacts.

One other Comprehensive Plan change proposal is being re reviewed through the 2012 Annual Review process, a change from Commercial/CC to Urban High Density/R-18 on 0.7 acres in north-central Vancouver (Glenwood Place; CPZ 2012-00006/PRJ 2012 00589). It is also scheduled for Planning Commission review on September 25, and is evaluated in a separate staff report.

A third Comprehensive Plan and zoning map change from Commercial/C-3 and R-22 to Commercial/CC on 0.8 acres in northwest Vancouver is also being processed in 2012, but as part of an annexation (Hadfield) and therefore not required to be reviewed concurrently with other Plan changes.

II. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The property owner is proposing a Comprehensive Plan map and associated zoning map changes from multi-family residential to commercial designations on three adjacent parcels (tax lots 110794-004, 110787-000, 110785-000) comprising 4.5 acres. The site is undeveloped and in a transitional area. It is bordered to the west by predominantly single family housing, to the north and east by the Vancouver Clinic medical office and associated parking, and to the south by commercial development along Mill Plain Blvd. Further east beyond the Vancouver Clinic is 87th Avenue and the larger Southwest Washington Medical Center complex. (See Exhibits A and B) Most of the proposal site is occupied by the former Walz demolition landfill, which likely limits future development options, particularly in the near to mid-term (See landfill boundary in Exhibit C, and analysis in this report) The proposed designation change includes no site development at this time, although the application and discussions with staff have indicated a desire to construct future surface parking to serve the nearby medical uses. The site’s current R-18 zoning does not allow non-accessory parking, whereas the proposed CC zoning does. Development of a parking lot to serve the medical center could occur under current R-18 zoning if done in conjunction with development of multi-family housing a corner of the site at or just beyond the landfill boundaries. Similarly, if the property is rezoned to Office Campus Industrial (OCI), medical parking could also be authorized if done in conjunction with an office building at a corner of the site. The application acknowledges the feasibility of these options, but requests CC zoning to allow non-accessory parking without the additional construction. (See Exhibits D and E)


- 3 -- 3 -- 3 -- 3 -

III. REVIEW PROCESS Application for the proposed designation change was submitted in June 2012 following a public application notice by web and email which began in February. The proposal has been processed under the procedures of the Annual Review program. A pre-application conference was held in on June 14. Representatives of the North Garrison Heights Neighborhood Association were contacted by telephone and invited. Legal notice of the proposal and hearing dates posted on the site and mailed to properties within 500 feet on July 20, and published in the Columbian newspaper on July 27. Neighborhood Association officials were re-notified on September 12. As of September 13 two telephone inquiries were received, but no public comments. IV. SEPA A SEPA checklist and Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on July 27 for the proposal, with mitigation as follows:

Mitigation Measures:

1. Prior to changing the Comprehensive Plan and Zone designation, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment shall be submitted for the former Walz Demolition Landfill on the site, evaluating potential hazardous materials, methane sources, and groundwater impacts as recommended in the April 2006 Phase I Assessment previously conducted on the site, and the potential for future methane migration to adjacent properties.

2. Prior to future development on the site, provisions shall be made as recommended in the Phase II Assessment or as otherwise necessary to ensure full compliance with Vancouver and state environmental and related standards.

A comment letter dated August 10 was received from Melissa Sutton of the Clark County Public Health (CCPH) department (Exhibit I). The letter indicates that although CCPH has no jurisdictional oversight of the landfill because it was closed prior to implementation of authorizing state standards, the department has no objections to the proposed designation change, and would support engineered design use of the site that would allow vertical gas escapement. Vancouver staff consulted with CCPH for landfill issues in review of the application, and will continue to do so through site development. No appeals to the SEPA determination were filed. The Phase I Environmental Assessment addressed in the SEPA mitigation was completed in April 2006 by previous owners of the site, and it recommended an additional Phase II assessment to determine the potential for hazardous materials at the site, potential sources of methane, hazardous chemicals above regulatory limits, and to confirm that groundwater has not been impacted. A Phase II assessment was received by staff on September 11. It reported continued methane venting at the southern boundary of the site of up to 17% from anaerobic activities in the fill, and found wood debris in one test pit. It recommended use of pavers for


- 4 -- 4 -- 4 -- 4 -

parking lot construction to allow increased venting on site, and that future structures or stormwater disposal occur outside of landfill boundaries. The Phase I and II Environmental Assessments are on file with the Vancouver Community and Economic Development Department. V. STAFF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS The following staff analysis documents the findings which collectively support the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission. The analysis is based on assessment of the proposal in comparison to applicable criteria from the Vancouver Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, as determined by the application materials and supporting staff research. A. Existing Conditions and Recent History Existing conditions and designations of the proposal and surrounding area are illustrated in Exhibits B, C, D and E of this report, and are summarized as follows:

Site: 4.5 acres, undeveloped with trees, grass, and bushes. Urban High Density Residential Plan designation/ R-18 multi-family zoning

North: Surface parking. Industrial Plan designation/OCI office-campus-industrial zoning

East: Medical Office (Vancouver Clinic) and associated parking. Industrial Plan designation/OCI office-campus-industrial zoning

Southeast: Single family residential (south side of 5th Street). Industrial Plan designation/OCI office-campus-industrial zoning

South: Small retail buildings and associated parking along Mill Plain Blvd. Commercial Plan designation/CC zoning

Northwest: Single Family subdivision, served by 6th and 7th Streets (stubbed). Urban High Density Residential Plan designation/ R-30 multi-family zoning

Southwest: Two vacant properties owned by the applicant not proposed for change. Urban High Density Residential Plan designation/ R-18 multi-family zoning

The site was owned by the Walz family for many years prior to recent sale to the current applicant. Before 1972 most of the site was used for sand and gravel mining, and then as a landfill for primarily construction debris until 1988. Six gas monitoring probes and an interceptor trench were installed in 1994 and 1995. One probe at the southern site boundary reported methane levels averaging approximately 35% from 1995 to 2006, with significant decline thereafter. 2012 analysis as part of the current application indicated methane levels of 17.2% by volume. In 2005 the site was rezoned from R-30 to R-18, based on the request from the Walz family that higher density apartments were not economically viable on the landfill due to added construction costs. In 2006, the Southwest Washington Medical Center and the Walz family proposed a 484-space surface parking lot, but it could not qualify as accessory parking as required in the R-18 zone unless the SWMC expanded its overall Master Plan to include the


- 5 -- 5 -- 5 -- 5 -

site, which did not occur. SWMC Master Plans approved in 2001 and 2004 did not include properties west of 87th Avenue. The site has potential road access through NE 5th Street, which currently terminates in a cul-de-sac at its eastern boundary, and through NE 5th, 6th and 7th Streets, which are stubbed at the western boundary of the site. Specific access provisions will be determined at the time of site development, at which time a 5th Street connection through the site may be required. The applicant has submitted a traffic study (last part of Exhibit H) projecting future automobile trips generated by typical development of the site under the existing and proposed zones. Multi-family housing under the current R-18 zoning would typically produce 58 evening peak hour trips, compared to 160 evening peak trips for an employee parking lot, and 215 evening peak trips if the full site were to develop as a medical or dental office under CC or OCI zoning. Future retail development under the requested CC zone would likely be higher. These differences are minor relative to the overall traffic capacity in the area along Mill Plain Blvd, and actual development of the site may be less intensive given landfill limitations. Future area capacity may also be increased by planned improvements east of the site, which may involve a new 87th Avenue alignment and new Mill Plain intersection connecting to Lieser Rd. 87th Avenue improvements are included in the 6-year Transportation Improvement Program, but are unfunded and may remain so given citywide needs. Other public service are available to serve the site (Exhibits F and G) B. Applicable Review Standards and Staff Findings

VMC 20.285.060.B Approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan map amendments, and rezones of more than 25 acres

1. Overall. Proposed amendments reviewed under this chapter shall be approved only if demonstrated by the proponent to be in the public interest, as based on a review of all applicable principals from the following:

a. How the proposal is more consistent with applicable policies of the comprehensive plan

than the existing designation, and b. How the proposal is more consistent with each of the following objectives than the existing

designation. Consistency is not required where the objective is clearly not applicable to the type of proposal involved. 1. Encourage more intensive development to locate in major urban centers and corridors,

particularly downtown Vancouver. Encourage development of distinct neighborhoods served by commercial nodes, and discourage urban sprawl and strip commercial development;

2. Provide development of uses which are functionally integrated with surrounding areas and neighborhoods in terms of local shopping, employment, recreational or other opportunities;

3. Provide development which is compatible and integrated with surrounding uses in terms of scale, orientation, pedestrian enhancements, and landscaping;

4. Conserve or enhance significant natural or historical features;


- 6 -- 6 -- 6 -- 6 -

5. Provide adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, and other public services; 6. Provide significant family wage employment opportunities and broadening of the

Vancouver economy; and 7. Provide for the formation and enhancement of neighborhoods and communities.

2. Scope of review. Review and evaluation of proposed comprehensive plan or zoning map changes shall consider both the likely and possible future use of the site and associated impacts.

3. Cumulative Impacts. The review of individual comprehensive plan map or policy amendments, other than exceptions noted in 20.285.030, shall also consider the cumulative transportation, land supply, and environmental impacts of other plan amendments proposed within the same annual cycle. 4. Required Findings. No amendment to comprehensive plan or zoning maps shall be approved unless the required findings of VMC 20.285.085 have been addressed in the written staff report and the written decision of the review authority.

Staff Findings: OCI zoning is generally more consistent with the above criteria than the

existing R-18 or request CC designations. The existing R-18 zoning does provide potential for needed multi-family housing adjacent to a major employment area located on a high intensity corridor with full transportation and transit service, but this potential may not be realized as housing may not be desirable on the landfill site. The CC zoning requested by the applicant and OCI zoning recommended by staff could both broaden the local economy, but the OCI zone is on balance more likely to yield family wage employment opportunities. OCI zoning is also likely to yield greater functional integration and compatibility with the adjacent medical center complex, which is also zoned OCI. See page 9 of this report for evaluation of consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies.

This designation change proposal is far removed from the other two proposals being reviewed in 2012, and all are relatively modest in size, ensuring that there are no compounding of cumulative impacts to local public services, land supplies, economic development or overall community quality of life that is significant on a citywide scale. Each proposal is reviewed through individual staff reports.

VMC 20.285.085 General Rezone Criteria and Required Findings for All Rezones A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all rezones, including those involving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, except correction of mapping errors. In evaluating proposed rezones, the provisions of this chapter shall be weighed and balanced together to determine which zone best meets those provisions. In addition, the zone purpose, location criteria, and design statements, which describe the intended purpose and design of each designation, shall be used to assess the likelihood that the area proposed to be rezoned would function as intended. B. No single criterion or group of criteria shall be applied as an absolute requirement or test of the appropriateness of a zone designation, nor is there a hierarchy or priority of rezone considerations, unless a provision indicates the intent to constitute a requirement or sole criterion. C. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall constitute consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of reviewing proposed rezones.


- 7 -- 7 -- 7 -- 7 -

D. The most appropriate zone designation shall be that for which the purpose, design statement, and location criteria for the specific zone match the characteristics of the area to be rezoned better than any other zone designation. The following zoning principles shall be considered: 1. The impact of more intensive zones on less intensive zones or industrial and commercial zones

on other zones shall be minimized by the use of transitions, physical edges, or buffers, if possible. A gradual transition between zoning categories is preferred.

2. Physical edges and buffers, such as natural features, major traffic arterials and railroad tracks, open spaces, and distinct change in street layout and block orientation may provide an effective separation or transition between different uses and intensities of development.

3. Physical edges, buffers and platted lot lines shall be considered in establishing boundaries. 4. Boundaries between commercial and residential areas shall generally be established so that

commercial uses face away from adjacent residential areas, unless physical edges or buffers (arterial streets, waterways, topographic breaks, mature natural or landscape buffers, etc) provide a more effective separation between uses. 5. Lower Density Residential areas may be rezoned to Higher Density zones only if the applicant demonstrates that the area no longer meets the location criteria for a Lower Density designation or the change is recommended as part of an adopted sub-area plan.

E. Impact Evaluation. The review of a proposed rezone shall consider both positive and negative factors when evaluating land use and environmental impacts, including impacts on public facility and service capacities, in the area of the proposed rezone. F. The review of a proposed rezone shall include consideration of uses which can reasonably be anticipated based on the development potential of the requested zone, and the nature of the site and surrounding area. G. Consideration of changed circumstances shall include elements or conditions embodied in the location criteria, and the purpose and design statements, for the relevant zone. H. Overlay Districts. If the proposed rezone area is located within the boundaries of an overlay district or sub-area plan, the purpose and boundaries of the overlay district or subarea plan shall be considered. I. An area designated and zoned Lower Density Residential that meets the location criteria of VMC 20.410.025 for such designation, may not be redesignated or rezoned to a Higher Density Residential designation unless the change is to implement an adopted sub-area plan. Staff Findings: OCI zoning is more consistent with the above criteria than the existing R-18 or requested CC designations. R-18 zoning, if developed, would introduce housing adjacent to existing commercial uses along Mill Plain Blvd, although those uses face and take access to Mill Plain, limiting potential conflicts. CC and OCI zoning would differ from existing housing west and southeast of the site, but CC zoning is generally more likely to produce higher levels of traffic, noise, and overall visibility.


- 8 -- 8 -- 8 -- 8 -

VMC 20.430.025 Commercial Zone Function and Location Criteria

A. General Criteria.

Compact, concentrated commercial areas, or nodes, shall be preferred to diffuse, sprawling , or linear commercial areas. The preservation, improvement, and redevelopment of existing commercial areas shall be preferred to the creation of new business areas or districts. Areas meeting the location criteria for Lower Density designations (i.e. R-6, R-9) are generally not appropriate for conversion to commercial. The encroachment of commercial development into residential areas shall be discouraged, except for Neighborhood Commercial within the criteria defined below for CN.

C. CC (Community Commercial) Location Criteria

The CC (Community Commercial) zone designation, as defined in above, is most appropriate in areas that are generally characterized by the following:

1. Both residential and commercial areas abut the subject site; 2. No physical edges (waterways, major arterial streets or freeways, ravines, cliffs, etc) separate the

existing residential or commercial areas from the subject site; 3. The site is located to provide a transition between more intense General Commercial areas and

surrounding residential areas; or is located along a major arterial where parcels are generally small or shallow, and are bordered by Lower Density Residential areas.

4. . The site is located on streets with good capacity (major collector streets and minor arterials) and good pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjacent residential areas.

5. Areas where the total acres in a Community Commercial cluster or node can be limited to approximately 10 acres, with other zones providing separation between Community Commercial clusters or nodes.

E. Additional Commercial Criteria

1. Proposals to expand or create designated commercial areas shall include a current market analysis which identifies the need for the new commercial area/center.

2 Proposals to expand or create designated commercial areas shall include a current land use analysis of commercially designated and zoned land in the market area of the proposed site that includes a discussion of why the amount or character of existing commercial lands are inadequate.

Staff Findings: The requested CC zoning is not fully consistent with this criteria. The site does abut both commercial and residential zones without physical separation. However, the existing CC zoning cluster along Mill Plain Blvd already exceeds 10 acres, and the proposal would expand CC zoning inward from Mill Plain where it no longer has direct arterial access. The application (Exhibit H) includes a narrative supporting the request for additional commercial land, but staff finds it does not demonstrate that the existing commercial cluster is inadequate.


- 9 -- 9 -- 9 -- 9 -

VMC 20.440.025 Industrial Zone Function and Location Criteria. A. General Criteria: Increasing industrially zoned land shall be favorably considered when such action will provide additional opportunities for business expansion, retention of manufacturing and other industrial firms, or increased employment, especially employment that adds to or maintains the diversity of job opportunities. B. OCI (Office-Commercial-Industrial) Location Criteria: The OCI (Office-Commercial-Industrial) zone designation is most appropriate in areas generally characterized by the following: 1. Areas with existing concentrations of technology-oriented, research and development, and professional service uses or close proximity to major institutions capable of utilizing or supporting new technology-oriented, research and development, and professional service businesses. 2. Existing light or heavy industrial areas which are undergoing a transition to predominantly office and/or mixed commercial and industrial activity. 3. Areas which are underutilized and could provide the type of environment attractive for new technology-oriented, research and development, and professional service office-style development. 4. Areas with access primarily along major highways and arterials, preferably well served by transit. Staff Findings: OCI zoning meets this criteria. It would expand the existing OCI zoning at the medical center complex, and allow for opportunities for related technology or professional service uses as the complex expands over time. Vancouver Comprehensive Plan Policies CD-3 Infill and redevelopment Where compatible with surrounding uses, efficiently use urban land by facilitating infill of undeveloped properties, and redevelopment of underutilized and developed properties. Allow for conversion of single to multi-family housing where designed to be compatible with surrounding uses. CD-9 Compatible uses Facilitate development that minimizes adverse impacts to adjacent areas, particularly neighborhoods.

CD-15 Public Health and the built environment Promote improved public health through measures including but not limited to the following:

(a) Develop integrated land use and street patterns, sidewalk and recreational facilities that encourage walking or biking

(b) Recruit and retain supermarkets and other stores serving fresh food in areas otherwise lacking them. Discourage supermarkets and fresh food stores that do relocate from using non-compete clauses that prevent timely replacement of similar uses. Encourage stores that locate near sensitive populations or underserved areas to offer healthy food choices

(c) Assess and promote opportunities for growing food in home or community gardens. Consider


- 10 -- 10 -- 10 -- 10 -

guidelines for service provision levels.

(d) Coordinate with Clark County Public Health to better integrate health impacts and land use and public facilities and service planning

EC-1 Jobs-housing balance Increase the ratio of jobs to residents in the City of Vancouver and the region.

EC-2 Family-wage employment Promote the formation, recruitment, retention and growth of businesses that provide a wide range of employment opportunities, particularly family-wage employment. Prioritize family-wage employment in land use policies and practices. EC-4 Industrial and business park sanctuaries Provide an adequate supply of industrial and/or business park areas with opportunities for family-wage employment and revenue generation. H-2 Affordability Provide affordable housing by formulating innovative policies, regulations and practices, and establishing secure funding mechanisms. Target affordability programs toward households with incomes below the median.

H-5 Housing placement near services and centers Facilitate siting of higher density housing near public transportation facilities and in designated centers and corridors. EN-1 Environmental protection Protect, sustain, and provide for healthy and diverse ecosystems.

EN-10 Air quality Protect and enhance air quality, in coordination with local and regional agencies and organizations. PFS-4 Transportation system Develop and maintain an interconnected and overlapping transportation system grid of pedestrian walkways, bicycle facilities, roadways for automobiles and freight, transit and high-capacity transit service. Include support programs such as traffic operations, transportation demand management, neighborhood traffic management, and the regional trails program. Work towards completing and sustaining individual components and programs to ensure success of the entire system. PFS-8 Transportation circulation and system connectivity Develop a transportation grid that provides good connections to surrounding land uses and activity centers and allows for multiple circulation routes to/from each location. Close gaps and complete system connections through the development and capital improvement processes. PFS-9 Land use and transportation integration Develop and implement innovative transportation investment, design, and program incentives to achieve the urban environment envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.


- 11 -- 11 -- 11 -- 11 -

Staff Findings: OCI zoning is more consistent than the existing R-18 or requested CC zoning at the site. As noted, R-18 zoning allows for potential multi-family housing near intensive employment and public services consistent with policies CD-3, H-2 and H-5, but the site might not be developed for housing because of the landfill. CC and OCI zoning would both increase the balance of jobs to housing (EC-1), but OCI zoning is generally more likely to produce family wage jobs (EC-2) and uses more compatible with the surrounding area (CD-9). OCI zoning provide for industrial sanctuary (EC-4) and allow for future expansion of the adjacent medical center complex and/or associated uses over time. SEPA Mitigation requirements to complete a Phase II Environmental Assessment prior to the zone change, and complete associated recommendations prior to site development, provides for compliance with environmental protection (EN-1) and air quality goals (EN-10).

VI. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis and findings in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of DENIAL to Vancouver City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zone designation changes from Urban High Density Residential/R-18 to Commercial/CC on the proposal site, but forward a recommendation of approval for a change to Industrial/OCI zoning, subject to compliance with SEPA mitigation measures listed on page 3 of this report. Exhibits:

A. Vicinity map B. Aerial Photography C. Site Plan D. Area Zoning Designations E. Area Comprehensive Plan Designations F. Area Transportation G. Area Water, Sewer, and Storm Systems H. Application Narrative I. SEPA comment letter from Clark County Public Health

of 10

(These are summary, not verbatim, minutes. Audio and video records are filed with the

City of Vancouver’s Central Records.)

MINUTES CITY OF VANCOUVER PLANNING COMMISSION

City Hall Council Chambers 415 W 6th Street

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting of the Vancouver Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Esther Schrader at 7:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance All Tina Picchioni: (Roll called) Members Present: Chair Esther Schrader; Bob Haverkate; John Lee; Dimitry Mishchuk; Erik

Paulsen; Lisa Willis Members Absent: Mario Raia Staff Present: Sandra Towne; Bryan Snodgrass; Linda Marousek; Tina Picchioni Others Present: None APPROVAL OF JULY 24, 2012 MINUTES Chair Schrader called for approval of the minutes. She asked if the Commission had any corrections and hearing none, stated that the minutes are approved as published. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Chair Schrader reported that she was invited to participate in a joint work discussion that the Board of County Commissioners is holding on October 10, 2012, to review and discuss the

Minutes Approved, October 23, 2012

____________________________ Esther B. Schrader, Chair

of 10

Lewis River Vancouver Lake Water Trail Plan. This has been two years in the making. Key jurisdictions located along the waterways have been invited to attend. Chair Schrader will represent the City of Vancouver Planning Commission at a report on the planned recommendations. She will report back on this. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS There were none. COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF Sandra Towne, Planning Program Manager, reported that October is National Community Planning Month. Each year APA, its members, chapters, divisions, and professional institute sponsor National Community Planning Month to raise the visibility of the important role of planners and planning in communities across the U.S. Locally there are two events scheduled in recognition of the contributions of planning to our community:

On October 1, 2012, at the regular meeting of the City Council, Mayor Leavitt will present a Proclamation recognizing National Community Planning Month to Planning Commission. Chair Schrader will accept on behalf of the Commission. All members of the Planning Commission are invited to attend and be recognized for their contribution to planning and the community. On October 18, 2012, from 4 – 6 p.m. the City of Vancouver in partnership with the Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association and Berger ABAM will offer an overview of the basic principles of urban planning and how they shape our community in Planning 101. This is open to the public; detailed flyers will be available shortly.

Sandra Towne announced that four candidates have been selected to interview for the transportation principal planner position formerly held by Phil Wuest. The hope is to have someone in place by January 2013. Sandra Towne noted that an additional workshop had been added to the Planning Commission Calendar, scheduled for October 9, 2012, to cover the medical marijuana issue, which will be before Planning Commission at the hearing on October 23, 2012. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS No new business to be addressed.

of 10

PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schrader read the PC Preamble covering the role of Planning Commission as relates to the actions for the hearing, identifying tonight’s hearing as a legislative matter. Chair Schrader gave instructions on public testimony and participation, with specific instruction to leaders of groups, such as neighborhood associations. First Hearing Item: 2012 Annual Review: Glenwood Place, PRJ2012-00589/CPZ2012-00006 A Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Designation change from Community Commercial/CC to Urban High Density Residential/R-22 on 0.67 acres at 5118 NE 82nd Avenue in Vancouver, 98662. Proposal does not include site development. Principal Planner Bryan Snodgrass presented a summary of the staff report through a PowerPoint presentation both of which are included in the record. Reported that there were two applicant initiated zone changes before the Commission tonight. Defined key concepts and a brief overview of the annual review process, noting the various ways the public has been notified and invited to comment. Reported that he only received one phone call in response to all of the outreach and the purpose of that call was clarification – no comment was offered. Provided an overview of the evaluation criteria as delineated in the VMC. Summarized the key conditions and staff findings of the Glenwood Place proposed zone change. Concluded by noting that staff supports the applicant’s request for a zone change from Community Commercial/CC to Urban High Density Residential/R-22 and offered to answer any questions. Chair Schrader asked for questions from commissioners. Hearing none, reported that there was a workshop on this proposal, which was quite thorough. Public Testimony: Chair Schrader: Called for public testimony. Tim Schauer, MacKay Sposito: Worked with the applicant and reported being available to answer questions. Chair Schrader: Observed that there were no questions and expressed appreciation for the offer. Called for further public testimony from the audience, hearing no response, closed public testimony. Commissioner Deliberations:

of 10

Chair Schrader: Called for a motion. Commissioner Willis: I move that Planning Commission pass on a recommendation of approval of the 2012 Annual Review Glenwood Place Zone Change from Community Commercial/CC to High Density Residential/R-18 per the report submitted and presented by staff. Commissioner Lee: Seconds motion. Discussion on Motion Commissioner Willis: This is an easy decision. The applicant owns surrounding property and has developed that property to meet the needs of our aging population. This change is consistent with such need and development. Commissioner Lee: Thirty years ago I lived in this area and am intensely familiar with it. I have seen how this area has met the needs of our aging population. It is exactly what is needed, it is very appropriate and I am happy to recommend this to City Council. Commissioner Haverkate: This seems pretty legitimate. It is a small area and meets the needs of our community. Chair Schrader: Called for a vote. Vote on Motion Roll Call Vote:

Esther Schrader Yes Bob Haverkate Yes John Lee Yes Dimitry Mishchuk Yes Erik Paulsen Yes Lisa F. Willis Yes

Motion passed unanimously. Chair Schrader: This concludes the first hearing of the evening. Chair Schrader: We can move directly to the second hearing of the evening. Second Hearing Item: 2012 Annual Review: 87th Avenue Medical Suites, PRJ2012-00855/CPZ2012-00007 A Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Designation change from High Density Residential/R-18 to Community Commercial/CC on 4.5 acres at approximately 87th Avenue and 5th Street in central Vancouver. Proposal does not include site development.

of 10

Principal Planner Bryan Snodgrass presented a summary of the staff report through a PowerPoint presentation both of which are included in the record. Reviewed a map of the second zone change proposal, noting that it too was a zone change without accompanying development. The current zoning for the site is Urban High Density Residential/R-18 and is located just north of Mill Plain Boulevard. The applicant has requested a change to Community Commercial/CC with the expressed intention to build a standalone parking lot. Reviewed the background of the site both from a zoning history perspective, as well as the fact that the site existed as a landfill. Reported that County Public Health found development of the site to permeable surface parking acceptable, subject to recommendations. Reviewed zoning options, broad development implications due to the previous site history as a landfill, as well as possible long-term impacts to surrounding residential properties. Reported concern that a commercial designation could bring a great deal more traffic through the neighborhoods. Reported that the evaluation criteria does not support a change to a commercial designation with the extent of commercial lands already available on Mill Plain Boulevard. Summarized staff findings and recommendations for a zone change to OCI, which with a code change, could easily support the applicant’s short term surface parking idea while offering fewer potential conflicts to the adjacent residential properties. No public comment was received in response to all of the public notification and outreach. The Medical Center inquired not so much in regard to the rezone, but rather more about possible redevelopment on the Medical Center Campus adjacent to the site and how related transportation impacts would be addressed. Concluded by stating that staff recommends a zone change to Industrial/OCI and will begin an exploration of potential code changes that would address limited non-accessory parking in the OCI zone. Offered to answer any questions. Chair Schrader asked if Peace Health had been approached about expanding their master plan, which seems as if it would be the simplest way to accommodate the applicant’s plans. Bryan Snodgrass reported that they had not expressed a preference at this time. In the past there was interest. Commissioner Willis reviewed options proposed by the applicant’s engineer and asked if a conditional use permit would allow non-accessory parking in the OCI zone. Bryan Snodgrass responded that this would require a code change that needs to be explored and adopted.

of 10

Commissioner Willis inquired about a zone change to CC with a covenant or development agreement. Bryan Snodgrass clarified that in this situation such an action would be using the development agreement to negate the entire commercial zone except for the one use, which far exceeds the intent and purpose of such agreements. Commissioner Willis confirmed that the only viable use as stated by the applicant was a parking lot. Gary Bickett, Public Health Department of Clark County responded that the best use of this site at this point is a parking lot as there are still pockets of woody debris decomposing producing methane gas. Commissioner Willis asked how this parking lot does not become a stepping stone to a larger development. Bryan Snodgrass reported that monitoring would continue to occur and that details would become clear during the site plan review process. Commissioner Lee asked how long the code change process takes to occur. Bryan Snodgrass responded that these types of changes usually occur once or twice a year though they can be brought forward at any time. He also noted that a code change most correctly addresses the situation. Commissioner Lee asked if such a change would affect all OCI designations. Bryan Snodgrass reported that would be part of the exploration, though as a former landfill this site offers unique characteristics that could be delineated in a code change. Commissioner Lee asked how this would impact the applicant’s ability to move forward in a timely manner with this project. Bryan Snodgrass suggested that the applicant would best be able to respond to development timelines of their future proposal. Commissioner Paulsen asked for expansion on the idea of building in the corner of the site. Bryan Snodgrass reported that a challenge of site development beyond a parking lot is that recent testing shows methane to still be venting on the south side of the landfill, which both impacts the expansion of 5th Street and the ability to develop the site with either an office or multi-family building. Commissioner Paulsen is there a difference in the amount of parking available to the applicant if the zone were CC versus OCI?

of 10

Bryan Snodgrass indicated no, if the code was amended to allow limited non-accessory parking in the OCI zone. Commissioner Paulsen wondered what the exact nature of the impact on development is due to the continued methane gas venting. Bryan Snodgrass reported that it was both more costly and constrained impervious surfaces. Commissioner Haverkate asked for clarification of the zoning map boundary lines. Public Testimony: Chair Schrader: Called for public testimony. Eric Golemo, SGA Engineering & Design: Reported that he is here to represent the applicant. Thanked staff for their work on the application. In general they are in agreement with staff that the best and highest use of the site is non-accessory parking. They also agree with staff that OCI is easily compatible with the surrounding residences. However non-accessory parking is not outright allowed in the OCI. They recognize that staff is exploring code change options to make the use more easily available; however it is another step and a slight inconvenience to the applicant. He concluded by offering to respond to any questions. Commissioner Paulsen: Inquired about the pervious versus impervious surface types and locations on the site. In addition he noted the benefit to allowing the rain water runoff to be managed through pervious pavement. Eric Golemo: Responded that pervious pavement was just one option to allow methane gas to continue to vent and that yes pervious pavement would also allow rain water to seep through. Commissioner Willis: Inquired about possible storm water runoff plans that would come with the development of the site into a parking lot. Eric Golemo: Responded that certain types of infiltration would not be allowed in the old landfill area. Pervious pavement would mimic the natural site conditions and is therefore a feasible option. Commissioner Haverkate: Have there been surveys regarding compressibility, some sort of analysis of the soils with an eye towards development? Eric Golemo: Yes there has been extensive geotechnical testing, which is the reason that a parking lot has been determined to be the best and highest use of the property. Commissioner Mishchuk: Inquired about the timeline options for the applicant if the CC zone was adopted with a developer agreement in place . Bryan Snodgrass: Responded again that a developer agreement that negated the entire use of the zone except for one use supersedes the scope and intention of such an agreement. Linda Marousek, Assistant City Attorney: A developer agreement should not be inconsistent with existing law. To use an agreement to wipe out every use but one seems inconsistent with that intent. Commissioner Lee: Asked staff to summarize the thinking behind the recommendation for OCI.

of 10

Bryan Snodgrass: Staff’s recommendation was informed by a consideration of both near-term and long-term possibilities as well as community impacts and needs. In addition the possibility of a complicated developer agreement that does not meet the intent of the law was not deemed appropriate. Commissioner Lee: Asked the applicant how much the project would be impacted by a recommendation to OCI instead of CC. Eric Golemo: We are working collaboratively with the City on this. We are looking at the best way to facilitate the use of the property. We understand what staff is saying about the scope of the developer’s agreement. We recognize and appreciate that the City recognizes that this is a special case: most of the OCI zone is not a former landfill. We will continue to work collaboratively with the City to make this happen. Linda Marousek: Provided some clarification for the record. The City has used covenants with concomitant rezones in the past. However for a number of years the City has moved to developer agreements, which are supported by a newer statutory process. Commissioner Willis: It seems that a multi-family project would also result in an increase in neighborhood traffic. Why not a change to CC? Bryan Snodgrass: Not only would there be an increase in traffic, but there is the timing of traffic, the nature of the traffic, lighting and host of other considerations that are part of a commercial project, rather than a high-density residential project. Commissioner Willis: So in the opinion of staff, there is sufficient commercial land available and a change to CC is not supported? Bryan Snodgrass: In addition to the need to demonstrate that there is not enough existing commercial supply and consideration for the long-term compatibility with the area, staff is also looking at the big picture. It seems likely that the area in question would fall under the expansion of the medical center, which is already zoned OCI. George Allen, 8614 Mill Plain BV, 98664: Reports owning a property nearby the subject site that abuts Mill Plain Boulevard and wonders about any development that could occur on the site. Bryan Snodgrass: Any development would require notifications and opportunities for public comment during the site plan review process. Robert Thompson, 8401 NE 7th Street, Vancouver, 98664: Reported concerns about the impact to his property by the venting of the methane. Commissioner Willis: Asked if someone could provide clarification about the venting of the methane gas. Bryan Snodgrass: Summarized that this was not a lined landfill and that some venting was not unusual in these cases. George Allen: Raised concerns that many properties in the area are still on septic systems and the proposed parking lot covers the path to connect to the sewer.

of 10

Bryan Snodgrass: This would be addressed during the site plan process. Mehdi Ferdows, 814 NE 87th Avenue, 98664: I share the concerns about sewer access expressed by Mr. Allen. Bryan Snodgrass: The proposal tonight to change the zoning would not impact the legality or status of existing easements. Chair Schrader: Provided clarification that while there has been much discussion about structures and development tonight. The issue before the Planning Commission is actually a change in zoning only. There is no proposal for development. Any discussion about a parking lot or accessory structures is speculative. It is important to hear from the public and we are glad that you are here. Bryan Snodgrass: Again staff would like to emphasize that the recommendation tonight is a zone change, in partial consideration of a likely development proposal for a parking lot on the site. Robert Thompson: Raised concerns about parking lot light pollution that could impact his property. Chair Schrader: These questions and comments are important to be raised at the time of an actual development proposal. Chair Schrader: Concluded public testimony. Commissioner Deliberations: Chair Schrader: Noted for the record that Commissioner John Lee had to leave at 7 PM and was excused. Chair Schrader: Requests a motion. Commissioner Willis: I move that Planning Commission recommend to City Council that a zone change to Community Commercial/CC be put forward as the applicant requested. Chair Schrader: Requested a second on that motion. Hearing none stated that the motion died for lack of a second. Chair Schrader: Requested another motion. Hearing none, offered a motion herself. I propose that we forward a recommendation of denial to Vancouver City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zone designation changes from Urban High Density/R-18 to Commercial/CC on the proposal site, but forward a recommendation of approval for a change to Industrial/OCI zoning, subject to compliance with SEPA mitigation measures listed on page 3 of the staff report. Commissioner Haverkate: Seconds motion. Discussion on Motion Chair Schrader: It seems to me that this is the best available solution. It is the most efficient

of 10

and reasonable way to support the best and highest use of the property. Staff has done a fine job of working this out. Commissioner Haverkate: I certainly agree with Chair Schrader. It is the most compatible use for this piece of property. Right now it is a barren piece of dirt sitting in a fairly valuable area. This is an expedient and effective use of this property. I think that it will eventually turn into a win-win for everyone involved. Commissioner Paulsen: I too support the motion. In consideration of the staff report, it is a long-term fit for the surrounding area while providing a short term solution. Staff has demonstrated how this is a balance of policy directives. Commissioner Mishchuk: I too support the motion, especially when the applicant stated that he could support staff’s findings and can find a way to make it work. Further OCI will be a better fit for the surrounding residential area. Commissioner Willis: I am not in favor of this motion. The staff position that the market does not demand CC at this point and that the adjacent use is not compatible doesn’t hold water with me for this particular application, because I think no matter what goes into that space, it would be driven by the market. Further, recommendation change to Community Commercial does not preclude parking or medical offices. The code change is not guaranteed for the applicant and is added effort and expense for staff and the applicant. To me the simplest and easiest way to accomplish the applicant’s goal is to change the zone to Community Commercial/CC. Chair Schrader: Please call the roll. Vote on Motion Roll Call Vote:

Esther Schrader Yes Bob Haverkate Yes Dimitry Mishchuk Yes Erik Paulsen Yes Lisa F. Willis No

Motion passed. Chair Schrader: This hearing is concluded and we are adjourned 7:45 PM.

staff report no. 098-12 · #1 staff report no. 098-12 to: mayor and city council date: 11/05/12...

Documents